It's hard to imagine though just how much smaller people were then, only two hundred years ago, and not just in height, in girth so to speak. Obesity of any kind would have been extremely rare, reserved strictly for the very wealthy. Most people had enough trouble being able to find enough to eat, never mind eating too much. I've often wondered why it is that the human race as a whole has become taller, is it simply better medicine, better food and artificial additives, is it a natural evolution to cope with the change in our environment since the beginning of the industrial age?

Well, have a degree in archaeology ( mostly concentrating on human evolution) and this is a subject that interests me- tallness is a thing that has come and gone over the two millenia of humans- some early hominds in Africa were very tall. The Neandertals were not that tall but Cro Magnons (the cave painters were tall). The Celts were tall and people in the Middle Ages generally not- yet there were exceptions- King Edward IV was six foot three. Food has something to do with it, yet my Dad tells me he often didn't get enough to eat during the 1940s on rations, yet he is five foot eleven.

In evolutionary terms two hundred years is a micro-second of time, but it seems extraordinary that the average height has risen so much in such a short period of time.

Not in ME it hasn't lol- I'm five foot three (just about)- so I'm about the height of our dear poet. At school almost everyone was taller than me.In fact it's still like that- all my friends are taller than me.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

Credo Buffa wrote:Another aspect to consider is that people in Keats' day simply did a lot more physical labor as a part of everyday life. People didn't have cars to get around or computers on which to get all the information they needed or jobs that entailed a lot of sitting down. A simple task such as doing the laundry, which today involves little more than pressing a few buttons and letting a machine do the work, was a very physically-demanding job back in the day, as were most things that we take for granted today. So not only did people not have access to huge supermarkets full of ready-made food, but they were working a heck of a lot harder than most of us do now.

Hey it can still be like that- until 2 years ago there was no washing machine in the flats I'm in so I had either to do my washing by hand or carry it to a laundrette. I cannot drive and cycle or walk. the bus fares are expensive so i walk/cycel when waether permits.In the summer (in fine dry weather) I frequently walk the 2- 3 miles to town. I read in a herbalism book that we should be walking 6 miles every day. In the past I have walked that amount in a day.

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

Malia wrote:That's true, Credo. I think of how Keats--while he didn't do the laundry--*did* tend to walk wherever he needed to go, whenever possible. Visiting his sister in Walthamstow meant walking between 7 and 8 miles (and I think that is only one way!).

I am impressed at how many miles he could walk in a day! He was very fit (obviously before the Consumption set in).How do you know he didn't do his laundry- perhaps he washed his own underwear ...

John....you did not live to see-who we are because of what you left,what it is we are in what we make of you.Peter Sanson, 1995.

Naturally, there are exceptions to every rule. Some people are just born taller or shorter than the average. Some people have more physical activity built into their lives than others. Generally speaking, though, there are definite trends in the way we generally live that consequently lead to other trends in society as a whole.

Hmm judging by your attire and the headgear that closely resembles one those wigs that were fashionable during the 18th century, I'd say it must be a character from that period, but exactly whom it is supposed to be I cannot tell. I'll try and venture out a guess, though. Could it be ummm Mozart? ( As I noticed you expressed your admiration for him in another thread) Am I anywhere near the truth?

Last edited by Jupiter on Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.